Skip to main content

tv   Politics and Public Policy Today  CSPAN  December 18, 2015 5:00pm-7:01pm EST

5:00 pm
was a chicago police officer. he began as a special agent with the fbi in the mid-1980s. he rose to become the unit chief at the fbi for russian espionage, and in march of 2002 became the senior level executive section chief for all of the espionage cases for the bureau. he worked on many infamous spy cases including incluearl pitts robert hanssen, he retired in 2004 and we're very honored and pleased to have him with us tonight to share his story. and david weiss, renowned author. in 1992 he wrote the book "spy." i have a copy of it here and there will be copies available on the tables outside the doors here for sale for those that might want to get a copy after you hear the story. i think it will pique your interest and this book really tells the whole story. we'll only be able to touch upon
5:01 pm
some of the highlights here tonight. it's called "spy, the inside story of how the fbi's robert hanssen betrayed america." he's known as the nation's leading espionage writer. he's written a total of 14 books most of them about america's intelligence and espionage agencies. his latest book is "tiger trap, america's secret spy war with china" it was "publisher's weekly" top ten political books in the spring of 2011. i thank other distinguished guests in the audience with us, too many to mention, but certainly many law enforcement agency heads and great supporters of the national law enforcement officers memorial fund. so, let me start with an opening question for both of our panelists if i might, and i'm going to start with you, mike, if you would. let's put this case in some perspective, the robert hanssen spy case. how much damage was done?
5:02 pm
>> can you hear me? do i need to -- >> yeah, please use the microphone for our c-span. >> so, let me tell you the assessment of the national counterintelligence executive in 2004 when i retired from the fbi relative to this case. their assessment was that he was the fourth most damaging spy in history of the united states because largely of the technical losses that he was responsible for. cumulatively if you had to reproduce some of these things might be somewhere around $20 billion to have the -- >> we leave this recorded program now on c-span3 and take you back to our live coverage in virginia of ted cruz supporters. >> -- before they even wanted to run. and when he agreed to run, i
5:03 pm
promised him that i would give him 24/7 for the rest of my life. and ted cruz, those two guys are two of a kind. they come along once in a lifetime. and ted cruz is -- he's another dave brock. and we need them, and i will work until the day i die for both of those guys. >> thank you both for talking with us. i'm going to move back here with another -- are you a ted cruz supporter? >> yes, i am. >> why? >> well, every four generations america goes through a crisis era, and here we are again. and we need and we always have a warrior priest type character, a man of godly character who is also warlike. and we had that with george washington. we had that four generations later with abraham lincoln. we had that four generations
5:04 pm
later in fdr and here we are now. we're four generations later and, again, we're in the winter of that repeating cycle. and in order to get to the springtime, we need a priest warrior. and the reason trump is up there is because he's the warrior and people are forgetting about the priest. and the reason ted cruz is surging is because ted cruz has both sides of that equation. ted cruz is the warrior priest, but the christian side has so many choices. you have dr. carson. you have huck abee and santorum and as more christians drop out the christian conservative support is going to coalesce around future president cruz i hope. >> but can he thread the coalition to win if he's the
5:05 pm
nominee and defeat the democrats to get to 270 electoral votes? >> this is a christian nation regardless. it's a 70% center right nation. the democrats have been outthinking republicans and conservatives, but ted cruz is one of the smartest republicans we've had in quite a while. he is the complete package. >> and your name, sir, and where are you from? >> craig johnson from richmond. >> thank you very much. and just one other group over here. some younger voters, potential voters, why did did you come out today? are you supporting ted cruz? what's your takeaway from his speech? >> yes, sir, i am taking away mainly the, um, military with the isis and i am a new -- i am a new marine that just got back from boot camp and i personally am gung-ho for everything that he supports with everything from isis to planned parenthood ap l abolished to everything he stands for.
5:06 pm
>> good luck in the marines. why did you come here? what is your name? >> gabriel seth hawk. >> where are you from? >> richmond. >> what is your name? >> david sloan. i'm from virginia. i live in richmond now, but i am originally from northern virginia but left there for a reason. >> because? >> it's a horrible place trafficwise, too expensive to live. >> what do you think about ted cruz? >> i think ted cruz is great. he's the closest thing i've seen -- i've seen -- we've seen to reagan in a long time. and our country needs recovering from eight years of a failed president and somebody has to come in and do the cleanup. and ted cruz i believe is the one who can clean up obama's mess. >> you're smiling over here. what is your name and why are you smiling? >> my name is christian denmark. i completely agree with what he's saying, you know, i think obama's failed presidency and i think we need somebody like ted
5:07 pm
cruz who will stand for what he believes and what, you know, against the establishment and, you know, believing and standing up for what he think so -- >> okay. we have two more people who have been very patiently. don't shake your head. i want to ask you two, what was your takeaway from senator cruz's speech and why did you come? what is your name? >> i enjoyed listening to him. we all need a change in washington and it seems like he's there to do that. >> do you think ted cruz can win the nomination? >> i think so. i think so. we'll have to see in another six months i guess. >> are there other candidates who you like? >> well, we kind of like trump also. i think cruz/trump ticket would be good. >> why do you like donald trump? >> oh, because he stands up and says it like it is and what most americans would like to hear and would like to have the courage to say it themselves. >> we're going to give you the last word. what is your name and why are
5:08 pm
you here today? >> my name is lloyd algood i'm the vice president of the mechanicsville tea party and i like mr. cruz fine. he gave an excellent speech, and i think he would make a terrific vice president for donald trump. trump is the leader. he is leading the -- he is running the whole vo -- he's running the whole show as far as the nomination process is concerned. everyone else is more or less following along behind him and the ones that argue against him just fall by the wayside. they no longer exist. mr. trump is 46% of the -- and mr. cruz is at about 15% to 16%. it's fine, as an outstanding man that mr. cruz really is, mr. trump is just out there and he's doing it. he's leading the show. he's running the whole nominating process. and i think he and ted cruz
5:09 pm
would be an excellent team. >> let me just ask you one final question because a lot of people have critcized the tone of this campaign from donald trump. you're shaking your head why? >> i think they cite size ritic the whole thing is too politically correct, you can't say an illegal alien, you have to say illegal immigrant. they are not illegal immigrants, they are illegal aliens. you are either in the country legally or you are an illegal alien, there is no other category. so, i support mr. trump for getting out there and telling it like it is. he will build a wall. i believe everything he says and i think he will make a conscientious effort to do everything he says he's going to do. and we -- i'm going to -- as long as his name is on the ballot, i'm going to vote for him. >> we'll just have to see if the
5:10 pm
numbers show, you know, and who wins. >> thank you both very much. we appreciate it. and a reminder this event and all of our coverage available online at cspan.org and this event will reair prime time tonight on the c-span networks. c-span takes on the road to the white house. best access to the candidates at town hall meetings, speeches, rallies, and meet-and-greets. we're talking your comments on twitter, facebook and by phone and always every campaign ehaven't we cover is available on our website cspan.org. earlier this month presidential candidate john kasich outlined his foreign policy and national security priorities during a speech at the council on foreign relations. this is about an hour.
5:11 pm
>> well, good afternoon. i'm richard hass and i want to welcome everyone to the council on foreign relations. for either those in the room or watching who may not know us, we're an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank and publisher, we're dedicated to be a resource for our nearly 5,000 members from government officials, business executives, journalists, educators and students, civic and religious leaders and others to help them better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing this and other countries. consistent with this mission we are making ourselves a resource
5:12 pm
available as a resource for presidential candidates and their staffs as well as for the american people in the run-up to the 2016 election. toward that end i've written to the democratic and republican candidates offering briefings from our experts as well as the opportunity for them to come here and speak and take questions from our members. and so far in either new york or washington we have heard from marco rubio, the senator from florida, jim webb, the former senator from virginia, hillary clinton, former secretary of state and chris christie, the governor of new jersey. and today we're pleased and honored to host governor of ohio, john kasich. governor kasich has been governor of ohio since 2011, and he previously served for 18 years as a member of congress from ohio. and today's conversation will be
5:13 pm
conducted by john mikellwathe, he's the editor in chief of bloomberg news and was formerly editor in chief of "the economist." the scenario will be first the governor will give us his prepared remarks. afterwards he will take questions and then the governor has agreed to take questions from you, council on foreign relation members. with that, governor, let me welcome you to the podium and to the council on foreign relations. >> thank you. well, normally i'd go off the cuff, but it's too of a distinguished group for me to do that. just kidding. it's great to be here at the council and it's great to have a forum like this. and so i want to give you a pretty comprehensive view of my -- of my view of the world and then we can take some questions and it will be great. so, i'm really honored and pleased to be with you today.
5:14 pm
you know, this kind of a forum is ly terrific because it's something more than a seven or eight-minute comment on the stage in the middle of a debate. it's actually a chance to express yourself over a period of time and with this in mind i'd like to take a few minutes to describe my vision of what i consider to be the right way forward to preserve our way of life and to secure our nation's future. i do so with the fundamental recognition that national security policy encompasses several broad areas. a strong economy, the necessary defense resources to secure our vital interests, a coherent and strategies all of which must be supported by a new commitment both to your alour allies and revitalizing our public diplomacy. it will take support to achieve our national security objectives. out really the same approach that was pursued by president
5:15 pm
ronald reagan from the very onset of his administration. november's suicide bombings in beirut, the attacks at charl"ch hebdo" and the crashing of the russian event over the sinai and the recent events in turkey, par riss, and san bernardino have made it clear that the challenges of terrorism has to remain front and center on our national agenda. i'm running for president because i believe i'm qualified to lead and to govern in an exceptionally challenging time. in the first instance the most pressing part of our current challenge is the rising threat of global terror in the name of a distorted view -- a distorted view -- of islam not just against western civilization but against all of humanity. it is an ideology in forming a movement that daily uses all the tools of modern communication to spread lies and to kill the
5:16 pm
innocent. it's worth pointing out that this challenge thrives by leveraging the communication technology that is a product of western society's huge advances in science, the communication revolution has created the interconnectedness that we enjoy today. and it's ironic, isn't it, to consider that it's part of the inherent contradiction of extremism. but the ultimate success of groups like isis would kill the very spirit of freedom and innovation and invention that created the communication technologies that they need to exist. patient negotiations played a central role in ending the cold war. and it led to a long period of international stability. and i was there through much of it. the reason is that both the soviet union and the western alliance wanted to stay alive. our enemies today they really don't care if they or anybody else lives or dies.
5:17 pm
and, of course, this is new and different for the civilized world. these opponents, therefore, pose a challenge that does not lend itself to resolution by negotiation. they don't want to occupy a couple cities, three don't want to occupy a territory, they want to defeat the west. my view is there can be no further delay in the concerted, coordinated effort that is required to defend ourselves and our allies and to defeat the terrorist threat. i don't think that we will disagree when i say that our present policies and military posture are not adequate to meet, much less defeat, the real threat that we face. extremist groups like isis and the syrian crisis are among the most pressing problems currently confronting us. diplomatic negotiations to try to solve the syrian crisis are under way. yet i'm not convinced that the agreement being negotiated in vienna will be implemented on an
5:18 pm
announced schedule or frankly on any realistic schedule. frankly, i think that what is happening in vienna in regard to syria really are empty and unrealistic promises. what is more, with isis having threatened to attack the u.s. homeland, either we or our allies engage now with our full capacity and with determination or we will continue to be engaged at times and places and at extreme levels of violence when we least expect it. we can't wait, folks. instead of signaling that we will not become more deeply involved, as president obama has done, we must stand ready to support france as i have called for initially to invoke article five the mutual defense clause of nato, which would bring us together to help our ally france. france didn't go in that direction. i think they chose to invoke the eu's mutual defense pact instead
5:19 pm
of nato because frankly our position was made clear. and it's disappointing. i agree with president hollande that the acts were an act of war on france and therefore were an attack on america and every other nato member state. nato came to your aid after 9/11. nato must now be ready to do so again for france. i also believe that we should significantly tighten the security checks that applicants for u.s. visa's under go and congress has begun actually to work together to think about that. since we are a nation of laws efforts to counter terrorists and criminals and spies can and must be done in a way that protects privacy and civil liberties. but in fulfilling its duty to protect our nation, the government must be able to monitor individuals it has reasonable cause to believe mean us harm. the san bernardino attack show that sometimes especially with individuals who are off the radar enabling intelligence agencies to analyze telephone
5:20 pm
calling data quickly could play an essential role in uncovering terrorist plans and networks. i do believe the american people would support the capture and storage of this information for defense purposes, provided that access to it will not be abused. we may, therefore, need to re-examine the period of time for which telephone metadata should be required to be held in storage specifically for counterterrorism purposes. that review should look in to tightening the criteria for access to the data and strong sanctions should follow if there is any abuse. we need to intensify international intelligence cooperation by identifying, exchanging information, tracking and then helping to arrest the thousands of foreign volunteers currently fighting with isis, a number of whom returned to their home countries to commit atrocities such as those witnessed in paris. we also need to ensure that our joint terrorism task forces have the personnel and the resources
5:21 pm
they need to track potential domestic terrorists. we need to understand the effectiveness of our joint terrorism task forces, run by fbi and comprised of local law enforcement. we should provide far more support to the kurds both in syria and iraq. the kurds are fighting to defend their homeland, and they're one of the few groups friendly to us that really has demonstrated that they know how to take the fight to isis. we must arm them much more effectively than we have done so far. turkey, of course, has legitimate concerns about arming the kurds. and we're going to have to work to address president erdogan's concerns even as we insist on addressing a threat to the vital interests of america and to the rest of the world. in other words, we've got to come to terms with erdogan when it comes to the ultimate resolution of the kurdish issue. we must create safe havens protected by no-fly zones in
5:22 pm
syria. i called for them early last month to reduce the suffering of the syrian refugees. the sanctuary should be located on the turkish and jordanian borders and our jordanian and kurdish allies could provide protection for them on the ground while the united states provides protection from the air. somebody asked me in regard to russia if they were to fly into a no-fly zone, i guess an amateur would answer it one way. if they flew in the first time, i would probably let them fly out. if they flew in the second time, there wouldn't be any plane leaving the no-fly zone. thanks to my 18 years -- 18 years -- on the house armed services committee i knew many months ago that the only way to solve this problem is to call for an international coalition to defeat isis in syria and iraq. we have to join with our nato allies and important allies in the region, jordan, egypt, the
5:23 pm
gulf states and saudi arabia to organize an international coalition to defeat isis on the ground and to deny them the territory that they need to survive. those with long experience know that an air campaign on its own is simply not enough. and the longer we wait, the more difficult it will be, and the more costly it will be in many different ways. mark my words, we will all be on the ground sooner or later. sooner is better than later. the loss of life, the delay -- the loss of life if we delay will be greater and the mission will be more difficult. and we need to make it clear to our european allies that just sending some people to drop bombs is not going to solve their problem in their homeland or our ability as a civilized world to defeat isis.
5:24 pm
to sustain the gains that such a coalition makes by defeating isis on the ground we also have to win the war of ideas. u.s. public diplomacy and international broadcasting have lost their focus on making the case for the ideas of the civilized world, and that means the value of human life, the equality of all people and the respect for the rights of women and for the rule of law, these ideas are far more powerful than our opponent's propaganda and our efforts must be consolidated and reorganized fundamentally in order to defeat their extremist ideology. i am not recommending a new department or can baexpanded government. i'm recommending that we take institutions like voice of america, radio liberty, so many of those communication tools that we used in the middle of the cold war to tell the truth and, of course, today in the 21st century it's not just about
5:25 pm
a radio broadcast. it's aboutving. it's about a social media effort. all designed to tell the world that life is greater than just your own life, that there is respect for women and equality for women and the right to protest and the right to free speech. these are things that i believe rest in the hearts of all human beings but sometimes they're overwhelmed by the propaganda of those who are intent on killing us and get broadcast to those who are confused or who have been prop gan ditez dized throu their life. we have to win the war of ideas. at the same time we win the battle of bullets. the challenges posed by isis in syria and iraq is a symptom of a broader weakness in american national security policy. failing to advance what we believe and our basic national interests. i believe this.
5:26 pm
we seem almost afraid to do so today for fear of possibly offending someone. a great nation that walks with fear is a nation that cannot lead. particularly when that leadership is indispensable to the world. others and some who may harbor unfriendly views towards us interpret our failure to act against such a threat as isis or in places such as syria and iraq. and let me add ukraine. as weaknesses. the administration's desire for a nuclear agreement with iran at almost any other cost is another example. we now have the report of the iaea which did not receive full cooperation and information on the, quote, possible military dimensions of iran's nuclear program. it states that the military-related work continued in iran as late as 2009 and iran's lack of cooperation with
5:27 pm
the iaea does not bode well for the future of the nuclear agreement. a new administration should review and reassess the agreement upon assuming office. we should remain vigilant and should be prepared to act immediately in concert with our allies in the event that iran violates the agreement. and let me just suggest that the president of the united states ought to be preparing with our allies in europe the possibility that if iran violates these agreements, we will not delay in imposing sanctions. without that spade work being done now, i'll tell you what i fear. money will be the order of the day. and we would be forced to act almost unilaterally. which would not allow us to be as effective as if we act in concert with our allies. i believe that weakness invites challenge and the kind of opposition that we've seen from nations do not share our values such as china and russia and
5:28 pm
many others, by invading georgia, annexes crimea, sponsoring the deadly jurinsurgy in ukraine and the establishment of s-400 and the syrian and belarusan structure, russia becomes a threat to security. russia's leadership does not respect territorial integrity and the rule of law. those are basic norms of international relations and russia's failure to respect them is not compatible with constructive relations with the west. we should work together with our european allies to defend to free ukraine that includes training and arming ukrainian forces with the weapons they have requested repeatedly which congress has already approved and ensuring what is provided is actually in working condition not our heavily used castoffs.
5:29 pm
it also means focusing on the defense of new nato member states on the front lines with russia such as poland, latvia, lithuania, estonia. we must focus on supplying and equipping them and achieving interoperability, jointly committing to higher defense spending targets and repositioning u.s. forces in europe near their eastern borders and increasing cooperatuation with non-nato finland and sweden and building a new, strong, integrated air defense to cover the eastern edge. learning the lessons of the kri myi crimean invasion, we know there is no such things as little green men or volunteers in the future any such combatants must be treated as what they are. and that is an attacking russian
5:30 pm
army. if they reappear, i would strengthen u.s. forces in europe and around the world to heighten alert status to enable timely intervention in support of our friends and our allies. and even while russia's actions forces us to take tough measures to achieve peace through strength and safeguard our friends and allies i would make it clear that the door to the negotiations -- that the door to negotiations -- remains open. achieving peace through strength has rightly become our touchstone ever since bernard baruk uttered them after world war i and our president and great general eisenhower adopted them as a central message of his presidential campaign and, of course, it was a central part of president reagan's campaign in 1980 and he acted on it once in office. i'm confident that talking with our allies russia and america can create the conditions to build a new european security architecture that accommodates the security interests of all.
5:31 pm
to achieve this, we don't need another failed reset. but rather a clear and credible statement of how we will respond to any further russian aggression. and all this should apply to our relationship with china as well. the lack of clarity that we have shown toward russia is essentially no different from that we have demonstrated towards china. china's efforts to stake an outrageous claim to control the entire south china sea and its seabed resources which it's clearly not entitled, those are stark violations offent natio t international rules and norms. it's an effort to bully their neighbors and because of those efforts we must now stand firm in support of our pacific basin allies who may be threatened by china's moves. this requires working closely with our regional allies significant to increase our military presence in the region if only to ensure the freedom of navigation for the $5.3 trillion in annual trade that currently
5:32 pm
passes through those sea lanes. to assist in this effort one initiative would be to deploy our pacific commander to guam and station additional air force and marine corps units in the western pacific and we should increase joint allied western pacific freedom with submarine patrols and amphibious landing exercises. the strong relationship between u.s. and japan which has a considerable defensive military posture of its own is essential to safeguarding the vast pacific waters. we should support our japanese allies as they defend their territorial waters and there are a number of things we can do, anti-ship missiles, rocket lawn. torpedos, enhanced seabed acoustic sensor systems and to deal with the ever present nuclear threats posed by north korea i would work with the republic of korea, japan and other regional allies to revitalize joint allied counterproliferation activities and to build ballistic missile
5:33 pm
defenses. we don't seek confrontation with china, but then why would we? just as we worked with china since president nixon's historic initiative 45 years ago together we should forge institutions that respect and accommodate the national security interests of every pacific nation. because leadership from the front has not been a priority for the obama administration, the tools of leadership, our military and our alliance relationships, have grown weak and frayed. we have even hesitated to advocate and live by the universal rules at the core of what we stand for. as we rebuild our nation's sorely neglected military from the bottom up, i don't mean that we should fulfill every military service's so-called wish list. the threats that we face require that we build corresponding capabilities and never become infearior militarily. folks, what it really means is that we build what we need based
5:34 pm
on the threat that we have. there's no room for pork. there's no room for log rolling. there's no room for using the defense budget as just a jobs program. build what we need to meet the threat that we have here in the 21st century. we have to be careful about how we spend our military dollars especially on weapons systems. we need to reward on-target cost estimates, insist on extensive prototyping, provide incentives for contractors to come in ahead of schedule and under budget. commercial off-the-shelf technology needs to be used and establish tough criteria for costly design changes. folks, i served on the defense committee for 18 years and i was involved in many massive reforms. procurement reform, goldwater/nichols to get the services to work together, empowering combat and commanders to have a say.
5:35 pm
the pentagon has to be reformed. we must have somebody that runs that building and brings a team in that's not too tough, because the bureaucracy will run the other way and not too easy so that they can be run over. somebody that can just get it done right with a president -- with a president -- who constantly looks over at that building because any of the dollars that we waste are dollars that are not going to support our men and women in the military. can we ever fix it? i don't think so. but can we improve that building? no question. and we need to do it at a time when we need to have a significant increase in the amount of dollars that we put into national defense. reagan came into office with a clear understanding of our challenges and he instituted a program of national defense and military vitalization that continues to provide for our defenses even now. as i've noted, we need to build a strong bipartisan team to
5:36 pm
implement his innovative policies. we got to do that again and we got to think about what the future is. folks, i've also proposed an economic revival plan that will provide the growth we need to be strong, strong economically but also strong militarily. my plan will balance our budget because i have balanced the federal budget of the united states working with some of my colleagues and i've balanced the budget in ohio for the last five years. we can't keep adding to our national debt particularly when other countries who we have to deal with own or are paying our bills. we lose our leverage. and let me just suggest to you the dysfunction that we see in washington, the inability to solve problems, what kind of a message do you think that sends to the world? it sends a message at home that we don't think we can get anything done and to the world it says what's happened to america? they can't chew gum and walk at the same time, that is not the united states of america.
5:37 pm
blatant partisanship and self-interest has to be overc e overcome. can it be? absolutely. with the right leader, leaders communicate a message. it's about you know what you have to do even though you don't want to do it but we're going to do it and we're going to do it together to solve our problems, rebuild our economy and strengthen the united states of america. unfortunately there are also new dimensions that has been added to the threats of our national security and our doorstep today as we meet is a large and growing threat to our information security called the cyber threat. look, $20 billion in estimated cost of cybercrime to the u.s. economy in '13. they're hacking everything. from our companies to our banks to our government. the actual scope and industrial scale of this problem now poses
5:38 pm
a significant threat to individual privacy and security, to our international competitiveness and to our national security. we need to make cyberdefense an integral component of our national security strategy. we must strengthen our defenses, deter cyberattacks, prepare to recover nimbly from such attacks when they occur and to respond swiftly and decisively to identify attackers. i'm told we do have the technology located in the nsa. we just don't have a policy. we just don't have a direction. we not only need to defend against these attacks, but we need to make it clear that we have the countercapability to identify and destroy those systems that are attacking the united states. the encryption technology that is increasingly available for everyday communications poses a growing challenge to our nation's defense. furthermore, the next generation
5:39 pm
of easy-to-use strong encryption is rapidly approaching. let me -- let me just explain. we knew of four or more individuals who our security people had been watching. the couple in san bernardino, it appears, were communicating with those people. but yet because of strong encryption we didn't detect it. let me also say in the case of san bernardino, there were some red flags. people building an arsenal. neighbors who might have suspected something. we need to watch. we need to report. but encryption technology when people can hide in a playstation 4 or when they can use the encryption that's on our own phones to avoid detection has to be solved. but it isn't easy. because the minute you begin to
5:40 pm
solve the encryption problem by giving our security officials an ability to get in a back door, it opens the possibility for criminals to be able to use that same back door, those who want to harm us to use the same back door to exploit access to the encrypted technology. so, what do you do? you sit down with people in the technology community, in the intelligence community, in the legislative community, and you fix it. there is not a single problem that we see that cannot be fixed if we get smart people in a room with good intentions, you can fix it. i've seen things fixed in washington of which i've been a part, balancing budgets, changing welfare, reforming entitlements. and in ohio a move from a loss of 3 50,000 jobs and an $8 billion hol to a $2 billion
5:41 pm
surplus and a growth of 200,000 job. how does it get done? smart people solving problems. you get in a room and you get the best people you can to fix it. after 9/11 i was invited to a meeting with secretary rumsfeld who had suggested at that point because of our lag in technology we bring people from the silicon valley to help some of our technical problems. and for a number of years, i was able to be a person to lead a group of the best and the brightest from the silicon valley to deal with our problems. and they were there to help. but, you know, as congress moves to put more rules and regulations, then our smartest and best in our society say i don't want to be involved anymore. let's use some common sense to try to figure out how to solve our most vexing problems in the world of technology and basically in restructuring government. intelligence agencies must continue to have the authority
5:42 pm
to monitor foreigners who we reasonably believe to be potential security threats and we must intensify international intelligence cooperation. we have to. relationship with our allies will be critical to all we do. friends in europe have been ignored. and after "charlie" with a million people standing in the town square of paris, the united states did not see fit to send a major official to mourn with the people of france. it's inexplicable. and allies like israel. the prime minister of israel comes to the united states and i'm president, he will have a meeting. and maybe we won't have 50 cameras there. but we're not going to disrespect our ally. our most meaningful alliance relationships are not just based on common interests, but they're rooted as well in shared universal values, respect for human life, freedom of thought and expression of religion and the right of every person --
5:43 pm
every person -- to have a chance to learn, grow and achieve. these values have guided our civilization for centuries, they're enshrined in the magna carta and the constitution and in so many constitutions around the world and the declaration of human rights. some consider it is somehow insulting or politically incorrect to call america exceptional. i've got to tl you, along with most americans in the political may mainstream, i don't believe, i know america's exceptional. and i won't equivocate on the matter. it's rather simply a statement of the obvious. we're exceptional because of our uniqueness. it's not a language or ethnic group or religion, it's a melting pot of every people in the world so when france hurts, we hurt. the tocqueville recognized this uniqueness as he wrote in "democracy in america" in 1831, throughout our history america has never been afraid to fight for our values and ideas and
5:44 pm
sometimes we argue, oh, yeah, we can argue, that's part of the normal give-and-take, perhaps even demanded for any vibrant democracy. that we have internal disagreements is part of how our system is to work, but disagreement is a hallmark of freedom. but, you know, at all times throughout our history we unite as a nation and we've come together in common cause. oh, we're so much stronger when we're together. republicans and democrats, liberals and conservatives and independents, together we stand together and with unity we have power and confidence. i believe we're in such a time today. a lot of the changes i'm talking -- some of them are large. unleashing the economy, strengthening our military and alliances and engaging our adversaries and if all else fails being more willing to project force decisively. but i'm confident we can do it, i know we can do it, because
5:45 pm
america's national security transcends partisanship and we've done it before. our power is in our people and we should use the power to keep our people safe, the willingness to sacrifice together and serve one another those are our essential strengths aren't they? to keep us safe and restore america's standing and leadership, we'll come together again and forge a new consensus around a realistic and sustainable vision for our future national security and the tools with which to implement it. thanks for your attention. i'll stand for a few questions. thank you. >> thank you, governor, for a very detailed look at foreign policy. i'm going to ask you one question having to do with news at the moment, the -- you didn't mention donald trump's answer to national security, to ban all muslim immigrants. was that because you saw it as
5:46 pm
beneath contempt, or is it something that moderate, pragmatic republicans like you should take on head-on? >> i have been attacking not donald trump, but donald trump's ideas that divide this country for a very long time. and i'm glad to provide a little bit of cover for those who are beginning to wake up who are running for president. whether it is his plans to attack hispanics, muslims, databases, insults to women and so far as to make fun of a reporter with a disability. this is not what leads to a strong america. i mean, and now this latest declaration, look, people don't buy this. oh, there may be a few, but this doesn't represent what we are. but, you know, when you're an american --
5:47 pm
>> do you think -- >> when you're in an "american idol" primary all things ham to you. >> do you think it's un-american? >> certainly not what we are as a country. look, i've been encouraged here by the number of moderate muslims who have come out. they said that their religion has been hijacked, they have said -- they have condemned aggressively the attacks all over the world. and, you know, bernard lewis wrote a great book called "what went wrong" where he talked about the need for islam to reclaim itself. and i see signs of people wanting to fight for what their religion is really all about. >> can i push you a bit on syria. you came out with a very passionate and actually very detailed reason to put boots on the ground in syria. but i wonder if you explain to me -- >> and iraq. >> -- how you would persuade
5:48 pm
europeans to back that who have generally been very reluctant and what would happen when you came up against russian boots on the ground in that area? >> if russia wanted to help us fight isis, i would welcome that, but it doesn't change my view on ukraine or earn europe. there can be times in which we can work together for a common purpose, but it doesn't let somebody off the hook when they invade another country or threaten invading our friends in eastern europe. we actually spent a little time before we came out here talking about this. if you take a look at the number of attacks, isis-inspired attacks throughout europe, we hear about some of them. there are so many of them that have happened that we don't really see because some are larger than others. but this is -- this is an attack on all of them. these are not going to go away. i mean, whether it's in all the countries, i mean, who have ever dreamt that we two have seen what we were seeing in brussels. it's everywhere.
5:49 pm
so, there's two ways to deal with it. you got to go to where the problem is. and my view is you don't have to lecture. but you got to talk to prime ministers and leaders of countries. you got to talk to them privately. we all have to be part of it and america has to lead. if we're not leading, they're not going. and when we're leading, we can convince them. i remember in the first gulf war, think about this, the first gulf war was nothing more -- and a big deal, but nothing more than saddam invading kuwait. and i remember when the egyptian ambassador to the united states stood in the rose garden and pledged arab support for our coalition. we're now talking about an existential threat on everybody. don't you -- wouldn't you think that hussein thinks in jordan? what do you think the family thinks in saudi arabia? what do you think they think in the gulf states? what do you think they think in egypt after for a while there we almost had a muslim brotherhood
5:50 pm
government? you know, they're next. and so i think it is possible to put a coalition together if we lead, and if people can count on us. you know, the red line was devastating to us. so, air power, important. lead and if people can count on us. you know, the red line was devastate to go us. so air power. but if you're not on the ground, it isn't going to work. now, in syria, i believe we should have been, you know, be again, a lot of this is what should we have been doing. we should have been supporting rebel forces early o. i believe we ought to continue to support rebel forces and i believe assad has to go. at the same time, i think to have a coalition and we have to go. it clearly isn't going to happen because the president thinks his policies are working. >> do you think you could settle that in toledo as well as riyadh? >> no doubt. i have been talking about this since last february. this is nothing new.
5:51 pm
polls -- leaders that run on the basis of polls are not leaders. we have enough of focus groups and put my finger air. when i was governor of ohio, in the first year we were devastated. at the end of the first year i was the most up unpopular governor. we want leadership. you have to be smart about it. you have to have the right tone. you have to know how to encourage people, put your arm around them. you need to be the one out there doing the leading. and across the country, i'm told that more and more people understand this threat. people want this dealt with. >> is there any way we can go straight to questions after this. but is there any part of barack obama's current policy that you admire and want to keep? >> i think he has done a few
5:52 pm
things in sending a message to the chinese with the forces. not enough. that is one thing that would stand out, that he recognizes that problem there. i don't spend my timing adding up you will things i disagree with the president on. he has a different view of the world than i do. he believes -- i don't know if he said but lead from behind. that's a new way in the 21st century to define leadership, lead from behind. but he has a different view. and he thinks america leading is a negative. and i think american leadership is in dispensable to world peace. >> let's go to questions. >> two brief pointed questions. you mentioned donald trump. yesterday former republican
5:53 pm
governor of pennsylvania and homeland security secretary tom ridge said if trump was nominated, he would not support or vote for him. how about you? if nominated, will you vote and support him? and why recently the climate change is a national security problem. do you believe in it? do you take it seriously? do you think it is a national security problem? if so, what would you do about it? >> first of all, on the climate change, right after the attacks, the president says we're going to fight terrorism by climate change. i never understood that at all. do i believe human beings affect the climate? i do. the degree, i'm not sure. neither is anybody else quite sure. just imposing willy-nilly goals and rules that may not even be able to be achieved while displacing people in the workplace is not my idea how you would handle this issue. i'm a believer in renewables and energy resources, and i think
5:54 pm
they need to be exploited. secondly, in terms of trump, i signed a pledge turn you have to be careful with pledges you sign. that i would support the republican nominee. look, is it possible you change your mind? yeah. it would take something extreme. look, there is no way donald trump will be president. i don't take it seriously. it is not going to happen. maybe we can all learn a little lesson from all of this. >> in the last 10 years, 300,000 americans have died from gun violence. would you support a ban on assault weapons? would you support closing
5:55 pm
loopholes and the no fly list. >> we stop people in ohio who are on the terrorism watch list. the one thing we don't want to do with the people on the terrorism watch list, we want to make sure we know what they are doing, and we want to follow them and understand it. when you look at the no fly list, my concern is you can be on the no-fly list. we have to make sure the people on that list are people who shouldn't fly on airplanes, and if we determine they shouldn't be on airplanes, then i think if they have some due process, i don't think they should be able to purchase firearms. let me also tell you that i don't think -- you take guns away from all the law abiding people, like the bumper sticker says, all the bad people will have guns and we don't, and i
5:56 pm
have two 16-year-old daughters and a beautiful wife, and i want to be able to defend myself if somebody is going to do me harm. but let's talk about the mass shooting side. if you have noticed, most come from broken families, from neighborhoods that have fallen apart. you wonder where's the siblings? where's the parent? where's the father? what are we doing on mental illness? i have an extensive program in ohio on emergency beds and treating the mentally ill. we need to look deeper as to some of the causes of what
5:57 pm
happens here. when people are isolated, mentally ill, feel as though their lives have no meaning, they can do really crazy things to harm others. so i think we need to go deeper on the gun debate than just the gun. and we need to get to the very root cause of what's happening in our society and what is it we're not doing to strengthen families, to strengthen neighborhoods, to be in a position of dealing with the real serious problems of mental illness. >> can you identify yourself, please? >> herbert living castle. mr. governor, if mr. trump invites you to join the ticket as vice president, would you refuse? >> i wouldn't run for vice president on any ticket. i'm not running for vice president. i got the second best job in america, governor of ohio. so don't be thinking about vice president. it ain't going to happen. mark my words. because i think i can win. now, we know new hampshire is going to be important to us. keep your eyes on the ball. we'll see what happens here. >> can i ask you a question on that? in terms of the way that you look at foreign policy, what sort of people would you want to bring in? who are the people that are the gurus of foreign policy for you? >> what i have learned, what i have learned for the many years
5:58 pm
dealing with the national security issues is you want two kind of groups of people. you want your traditional military people and those who think differently. there's always been a struggle, a war between those who believe in sort of the traditional military operations and those who have spent more time in things like special forces. you want to have a divergence of opinion because traditionalists and those who are not your traditionalists. the same should hold true in the civilian advisers. those who are traditionalists and those who are not. my chief adviser is richard allen, former national security adviser of president reagan. he's just terrific. but i have other people that i listen to. i'm going to give you one
5:59 pm
example of what i say when i talk about traditionalists. i asked a person with a long record in the cia if they felt the cia was capable of targeting. when we launched a drone strike and hit the wrong target. this person who served a long time in the cia said i don't think the cia is great at targeting. i think this is something that ought to be done inside the pentagon. i like that guy. because i like to hear divergent opinions about how to do things. >> so you want ava right of opinions. the same is true when people say how many forces are on the ground. well, if you don't know you feel you should answer that. it is not the job of the president to determine troop levels. it is the job of the commander in chief. we are going to go. give me two or three programs and let's sit down and discuss the alternatives. so much of what we do in a presidential campaign today is i
6:00 pm
have to give you a slick little answer. things don't get solved with slick little answers. we talked about the problems of the no fly list or encryption or cyber warfare. they don't limit themselves to ay sound bite. it is people with good intentions, intellectually honest solving problems. if somebody i work with doesn't operate that way, i can't keep them involved. most want to contribute to something greater than themselves. that's kind of the way i would do it. with that all that is going on in the region, could you expound on how you would work with israel? >> sometimes we are tougher on our families than people we barely know. the same is true it seems sometimes in international relations. we are tougher on our friends than we are enemies. it is kind of human nature to think that way. israel is our great ally. if i have anything to say as president that i don't like that they are doing, i'm doing it in a back room where no one else can hear me.
6:01 pm
not with a bank of television cameras to embarrass our friend. frankly, i don't know what all the big discussion is with israel. they are a great ally, and their existence is in question almost every day when we can't even -- somewhere somebody said what are you going to do about the peace process? i said, look, when you have to go from saudi arabia and fly to egypt to get to israel. and if you're saudi arabia, you can't find israel on a map. why not have the world recognize their existence. until the radicals change their way, let's work with them. things we can do to contribute to a solution. let's do it. the other thing is in regards to israel, srvisa vi, and the
6:02 pm
problems there. there are no final answers. the approach to me in the middle east with israel is how do we achieve stability? how do we get through the day and be stable? because there is no single simple little resolution to the challenge that we have there. but we can't forget that they're our great friend. >> one question question on that. a lot of earlier plans in syria, really brought turkey in. the relationship has deteriorated significantly. do you think you could use turkey and still retain israel as an ally? i think that the eu made a very big mistake when they refused to allow turkey could be part of their economic program. turkey needs to be pulled on the west. they don't need to be let go to the east. they could be a bridge to the
6:03 pm
middle east. now, people have told me that erdogan, who i guess spoke here. i saw his picture on the wall out there. you know, he's a tough character. clearly. one thing i would tell you is i don't understand when the russians -- some people say the russian plane went in briefly. they shouldn't have shot it down. i don't know what the truth is there for sure. what i know is when somebody invades your airspace and you take action, you don't apologize to the country that invaded the airspace. it seems to me we should have been saying to the turks, you're nato. you did this. we support you. they entered your airspace, the economics of turkey may be a way to be able to get there. we're going to have to deal with turkey when it comes to a
6:04 pm
long-term resolution of the kurdish issue. as you all though, the turks live in current fear. but the reality is the kurds will have to have some place. maybe a confederation. i don't know. but we have to think about it. we're going to have to work with erdogan. frankly, we're going to have to spend a lot of time with him and understand what we can do to move them our way. i just think it is vital. there was a long history of turkish and israeli good positive were relationships. i don't think one precludes the other. and i think we need to work on this. i think public diplomacy has been at an all time low. and i kind of believe around the world not only should we have a military presence. former commander in nato and
6:05 pm
former head of the marine corps. said, look, we need military, we need diplomatic. let me tell you, if you're an investor from texas, need to have our our business partners around the world having something to say also. i know somebody that runs a major oil company that i think knows about putin than the entire state department. so we need to be able to listen. we understand they have a bias. we know that. but they are also americans and they have a lot to say. so public diplomacy. friends in columbus, ohio have opened a company in turkey. it would be interesting to hear what they have to say. but we don't want to lose the turks. we want to bring them to the west, anymore. i would work aggressively to try to do that. >> governor, you made your mark in washington on the budget as somebody who knows it inside and out. could you explore a bit with us the financial implications of your foreign policy vision. and on the nonmilitary hardware side. do you see the investments we make in diplomacy, in the state department, in international
6:06 pm
department aid and things like the younger president bush's health care initiatives, aids, et cetera or u.n. peacekeeping in africa as an important contributor to our role in the world? is this something that we need to expand along with defense spending for the future? or is this where we have to economy mize to keep our budget in balance. >> i get us a budget to balance in eight years. but i'm not promising you flat taxes and no irs. come on, folks, let's grow up. let's be real about what's going to happen. i would bring the top rate to 28 like reagan did. i would have three rates. capital gains at 15. now, in addition to that -- increased in the earned income tax credit so the people at the bottom have incentive to work. i would bring corporate rate to 25. accelerated depreciation.
6:07 pm
at the same time you bring all your money back from europe 5%, 6% tax. after that no more double taxation. that would probably a point in economic growth. i would restrain government spending. i would move welfare, job training, transportation, and medicaid out of washington, into the states, with greater flexibility with some guard rails. and then i would increase defense spending by $100 billion and freeze all federal regulations for one year except for health and safety and make an effort to reduce our overregulated society.
6:08 pm
that all adds up to 3.9% growth, which would get us to a balanced budget. it would happen much sooner than we would project. but i have to be realistic with you. i haven't checked this lately. but the agency for international development was supposed to take people from developing to developed. i think our foreign aid leaves a lot to be desired. however, in 1998 or 1999 i was the guy that took bono to capitol hill and worked with, believe it or not, ted kennedy and jessie helms and bill clinton and pat robertson to pass the first debt relief measure. why? because when our bombers fly over an african village and the men are shaking their fists, i want the women to say, the united states vaccinated my children. so the deal is that foreign aid is important. diplomacy is critically important. and the foreign aid that actually goes to help people. and i think what president bush did, never got any credit for, was really a follow along on what bono had started.
6:09 pm
so it's things like clean water, vaccinations, things like mosquito nets. absolutely they're important. but you can't come in there and create a big project that puts money in somebody's pocket and displace all the people in the village. you create anger and antipathy to the united states. i believe that the western ethic has to be defended. you've not to realize that -- who are these people to join isis? how do people from starkville, mississippi try to make their way to syria? who are they? whenever people lose meaning in their lives, whenever they think their lives do not matter, whenever they become hopeless and frustrated, bad things happen. drug addiction, a turn to radicalization. we need to tell people that
6:10 pm
their lives do matter, that they can change the world. that, in fact, we have to live lives bigger than ourselves. we are for equality of women and science and progress and civilization. we have to communicate that in every mean we can to those people out there who sit on the fence and hear the propaganda from isis and their ilk. and foreign aid and diplomacy, it's all part of it. okay. >> lady in red at the back. >> so my question is if you were forced to live somewhere outside the united states for, say, five years, where could you see yourself living, like a society that you think does it well? and my second question is how would you fix the problem that is the cleveland browns?
6:11 pm
>> boy, those are two great questions. fix the cleveland browns. probably start all over again. you know, i have a hard time imagining living outside westerville, ohio, let alone outside america. honestly, i couldn't imagine living in another country. let me tell you. i mean, aside from all the rhetoric, my father -- his father was a coal miner. he would go in the mine and say look at the coal i brought up. some guy would say that's not coal, that's peat. they would rip him off day after day. they had eight kids in the family. i'm told by uncle gorge that they at time went to school in clothes made out of flour sacks. my uncle george can't belive what happened to his nephew. my mother's mother was croatian. she couldn't speak english. i never met my grandfather on my father's side. i'm at the council of foreign
6:12 pm
relations today. no, i mean, i'm not -- this is no suck up. this is like a big deal. i'm at the council of foreign relations. i can't believe it. i'm with the guy that used to be the head of the economists. this is really amazing. >> so that's what your grandmother dreamed of? >> laughter. she would have been very enthralled with our accent. i can tell you that. where would i want to go? this is where i want to be. i travel around. i'm going on. my wife and i went to prague for her 50th birthday a couple years ago. she's much younger than i am. it was unbelievable to go to prague, and to think about vakla klaus and their struggles and the beauty of the city that was spared the bombings of world war ii. i then took her to berlin. we were standing at one of the
6:13 pm
last pieces of where the wall was. my wife hadn't seen it. i was there before the wall came down. ive visited the soviet union for a committee. a woman was on the carriage -- this is just recently. standing on this side of the world. and her son, who was kicking a little ball around, probably no more than 6 or 7, was on the other side. and i became emotional. and the guide with us said, what the heck is wrong with you? i said just think about this. before that wall came down, if you lived over here, you had a life. and if you lived over here, you lived in a big prison. we brought that wall down. we freed people. and we don't often think about what we were able to achieve. and what i'm saying is, we went to paris. what's better than versailles? i kind of like louis xiv.
6:14 pm
i'm not leaving america. even if the browns win, i'm not leaving america. >> sadly, we have run out of time. we have gone all the way. >> okay. >> we have gone all the way from donald trump to science progress and louis xiv. thank you. >> thank you. c-span takes you on the road to the white house. best access is to the candidates at town hall meetings, speeches, rallies, meet and greets. we are taking your comments on twitter, facebook, and by phone. and always, every campaign event we cover is available on our website c-span.org. in the news today, congress passed a spending bill and $680 in tax extenders.
6:15 pm
the deal, a victory for new house speaker, paul ryan, avoids a government shutdown, allows crude oil exports for the first time in 40 years, and expends a huge variety of tax breaks, including those for college tuition and renewable energy such as solar and wind power and the president signed the legislation earlier today. this weekend the c-spans city tour explores the history of massachusetts. worcester played a key role in the american revolution and it was also a major contributor to the industrial revolution in the u.s. and known for its innovators in commerce and industry. you will learn about the life of political philosopher, henry george, and then we'll visit one
6:16 pm
of the largest r in the countryd then talking with the author about the migration of african-americans to worcester after the secivil war. >> and almost town in the county had one, and as soon as the war breaks out, there are quite a few societies that are organized as well, so it's a city that at this time that is very forward-looking and very progressive in lots of ways. >> we will visit mechanic's hall, built in 1857 for the worcester's mechanic's association, and it's registered as historic places and it served as a platform for social activities.
6:17 pm
>> the first women's right convention happened before the hall opened but after people came here to speak. mechanic's hall is where everything happened. >> we will tour the clark university special collections, and best known as the father of modern rocketry. >> robert goddard attributes his first interests in space travel and his first interest in a career in science to a day in 1899. he went outside with a saw and hatchet and he was meant to trim the dead branches off a cherry tree, and he climbed the tree, and i think he made himself a little ladder to get up the tree, and while he was up in the
6:18 pm
tree, he looked down on the fields around him, and he thought how wonderful it would be to build some kind of a device that could leave the earth and maybe even travel to mars. >> watch see c-span's cities tour. the c-span cities tour, visiting cities across the country. earlier today we spoke to editor and founder of "the weekly standard" about this week's republican debate. here is a look. >> bill crystal, just to continue the conversation we have been having with our viewers for the first time since 9/11, government's job rating on terrorism turns negative and people do not feel safe. >> san bernardino was the first attack since then, and that's
6:19 pm
part of it and the sense of the world is chaotic, and the middle east is chaotic and it can't be contained there, and that's the biggest lesson in the last year or two, and you can't just sort of say we are getting out of that region x out of iraq, and the chaos will be -- it will come to aoeurope and here. >> is it different in 2015 than it has been in the past? >> it's hard to say. i think people have been very worried, as they should have been, about terrorism for a long time and even before 9/11. i think the situation on the ground in the middle east and then the refugee influx to europe and obviously europe is a place where you can -- it's easy to get there from the united states, that's what the 9/11 hijackers did, and in that sense
6:20 pm
it's more worrisome than it was, and in 2008, we had won in iraq and other parts of the region were relatively stable, and some of us were worried about president obama president obama's strategies. >> the voting bill, this is what rush limbaugh had to say, and i want to get your response to this. this is a transcript from rushlimbaugh.com. >> now the republicans have the largest number of seats in the house they had in congress since the civil war and has not made any difference at all, as though nancy pelosi is still running the house and harry reid is still running the senate, and what happened here is worse than betrayal, it's worse than that, and we don't even need a
6:21 pm
republican party, he said, if they are going to do this. just elect democrats, dispan the republican party and let the democrats run it because that's what is happening. >> i don't like the spending bill and i would have voted against it if i were a member of congress because there are a lot of bad provisions in it, and this is supposed to be a spending bill keeping the government going and it has all the policy writers, and some of them are favorable to democrats and republicans and the lobbyist, and that's what i find so offensive. they should pass these tax provisions and other measures, a lot of earmarks if they are in the public interests, pass them. but there are immigration provisions in there, and it would be worse if nancy controlled the house and harry
6:22 pm
reid controlled the senate, let's not kid ourself. i do think this is a case, paul ryan said this, he said it was stuck where things were, the clock was running out, and he felt he had to go with the way business has gone in the last few years and he says they are now going to change and go to regular border. let me give you an example. the work visas are quadruples, and that may be a good idea and maybe they need to work in resorts, and the jobs that americans allegedly won't do or are not qualified for, but let's debate that, that's in the matter of public policy. there's no reason that couldn't be brought to the floor, and have a public policy thing on. it is being smuggled into a last-minute bill with in chance to vote on it separately, and that's just bad governance and
6:23 pm
process, and paul ryan says he doesn't like it either, and i think he could have done more to keep it out of there. the a ship will be built in mississippi, and the lobbyist working for -- i think it's called engeled ship building, and trot lott, and this is why people do not like politics in washington. it's why they are right not to like politics in washington. it's why donald trump is getting so many votes in the republican primary. >> what do you think about donald trump? >> i don't like donald trump, and i don't think he should be prepare of the united states and i don't respect him personally and he is a bully and says things that are foolish and irresponsible, but i think -- he is an effective demagogue and
6:24 pm
talented and channelled the dissatisfaction of the american people with the political elites and maybe all the elites and he is one of the elites in many ways and it's an interesting challenge for the other candidates. can they deal with trump? i feel if ted cruz or marco rubio or chris christie or one of the others can't deal with trump, they can't deal with putin or isis either and it's a good test for the more established republican candidates, the ones that have governing experience, and can they co-opt what is true in trump, or at least what is lawit m -- legitimate while not being foolish the way donald trump is. >> you have ever seen a person like donald trump run for president before? >> ross perot is the obvious comparison, he didn't run in the primary, and he was a more
6:25 pm
admirable person than trump, and i think he was worried about the deficit and didn't run that kind of campaign, and we were unhappy to have perot running. and trump has been more demogogi kreufplt. people are sick of politics, and politics as usual as failed and they do well. but governors -- minnesota seems to be doing okay, and california is doing okay and they survived four years of maybe not great governorships by these celebrity governors, but the presidency is a different way. there's a price to pay if you
6:26 pm
are running for the president of the united states. commentators and÷!ib you and me huge country and people can say a lot of things and a lot of things are going to be wrong or foolish and ill-advised, and life goes on, but not that many people are finalists for the president of the united states and they have a responsibility to be more careful about what they say. >> it was crystal, you may recall, that gave the gop the gift of sarah palin. palins and trump's political styles are similar, and personality driven, and she was a early beneficiary of the same backlash of the establishment. republicans that trump is currently prophau profiting fro. crystal can't previous the party
6:27 pm
would coalesce around trump. >> i met sarah palin, and she ran for several offices and was a very bright and effective young governor and i thought she should be considered for the vice presidencpresidency. she's not running for president, and that's the difference. i think she understands why she should not be president of the united states. and i suggested her name, and maybe they have been more vetting and she was a sitting governor and well respected in the state. whatever the merits, she is not running for president, and she didn't say things, and she was not demagogue in the way trump
6:28 pm
said, she did not tar whole religions or call for nutty public policies. she was more of a movement conservative, i would say. trump's support does not come predominantly from the polls, it comes from a lot of conservatives and moderates and -- he's not -- look, there are conservatives that say things with which i disagree, and donald trump is not part of a conservative movement. if donald trump used his wealth to help conservative candidates, has he done what many, many other businessmen have done in trying to support conservative think tanks? no, it's all about himself. he has no interest in the conservative movement or ideas and policies and he doesn't now and he's not even advocating
6:29 pm
really the conservative policies. i guess sarah palin would have been simple minded about the constitution, and donald trump doesn't care about the constitution. it's unfair to say, sarah palin, there were movements that were mixed in their subtlety and understanding of issues and the tea party was about limiting government and throwing power to the people, and fighting obamacare, and i think those are all good things. donald trump never talks about the constitution. i think trump, one reason i dislike trump is he has succeeded in persuading or whatever, charming some of the conservatives think that he is in the next stage of the conservative leadership, and he really isn't. that's the sort of different kinds of conservative leaders. donald trump is not a conservative leader.
6:30 pm
>> you have endorsed? >> no, i just comment on the race. trump, i think should not be president of the united states and i think i shocked some people. somebody asked me if i would vote for trump, and i said no, i don't think he has the character. would he appoint conservative justices to the supreme court? no. whatever you think of john kasich, ted cruz, and maybe the exception of rand paul, i would have a problem with him, too, and even rand paul, he has a set of views and he has been open about them, and i just disagree with them, and that's fair enough. the others all pretty much on the big picture, the constitutional issues, and
6:31 pm
regulatory issues, and they fall within the general critique of big government, welfare state modern liberalism, and a critique that i think is correct. i am anti-trump. having said that, early on i was -- i wouldn't describe myself as anti-trump, but some of the comments were sort of, you know, didn't see at all why trump was saying some of the things that were important. i think i was one of the first editorials the week trump announced, i said you have to take him seriously, and he is saying things others aren't saying and hitting a cord and i saw something there, and i was wrong in saying that trump peaked. i thought that air was going to go out of the balloon when he said outrageous things, john
6:32 pm
mccain and the pows deserved what they got, and down to the comment we should exclude all muslims from re-entering the country, but he managed to survive all the steps. i think people do have a sense -- there's such reaction against obama's political correctness, the reaction has gone too far, if the mainstream media attack it, we have to like it. you can't just like everything that the mainstream media dislikes. >> bill crystal is our guess. paul is in orlando, and paul is a republican. hi, paul. >> caller: good morning, peter. thanks for taking my call and thanks for c-span. if the petersons are watching i hope the holiday are treating them both well. happy hanukkah. i have been following you sense
6:33 pm
the world was young, and i don't change the channel, and i think your opinions and insights are very informative, and i do agree with you on this last budget deal. you know, at what point are both republicans and democrats going to get serious about the budget deficit. this is a major, major problem. i do disagree with you on donald trump. i do like the guy. i don't think what he said about muslims helpful. we need both american and foreign muslims on our side if we are going to win this war against, you know, the new version of naziism. my personal ticket would be carly fiorina and marco rubio. carly says, and she's absolutely right, no matter what your beef
6:34 pm
s. the political class has failed us, whether it's -- think about it, the war on poverty, been going on since the '60s, and the war on drugs been going on since the '60s, and schools and criminal justice, and the political class continues to fail all of us. >> paul, that's a lot on the table, very quickly before we get an answer from mr. crystal, i want to show you this picture. you are calling in from orlando. here's disney with the x-ray detectors to get into disney now. what do you think about that? >> translato >> caller: well, you know, peter, i am surprised it has not happened sooner. this is a great city here, and we have so much more than the three big theme parks. orlando international airport is one of the busiest airports and since 9/11 i am just amazed that
6:35 pm
somebody hasn't smuggled into the country one of those shoulder launched missiles and at anyone of the airports in the country taken down a plane. i am surprised that more acts like san bernardino hasn't happened. the previous segment about do you trust the government, you know, to keep us safe from terrorism? i am not sure that was a yes or no question, but i am very surprised that it has taken this long for the theme parks. it's sad, it's sad it has had to come to this. i am taking way too much of both of your times. >> we will leave it there. paul, good to leave it to you. the petersons are an older couple that usually calls in and we have not heard from them recently. >> he suggested carly fiorina, and a marco rubio ticket, and a
6:36 pm
couple months ago on the morning shows i suggested rubio fee an carly fiorina, and both are strong tickets and both have different qualifications and backgrounds. i think paul exemplifies, if you listen to him for two minutes, a thoughtful person that understands that he is not for trump but he understands expressing the dissatisfaction of the class, it's a smart thing to do. somebody said to me the other night, expressing these opinions, so that i think -- the elites have failed in many ways. not in every day, and we shouldn't overdo it, but political elites and financial elites that assured us the '08 meltdown couldn't happen.
6:37 pm
i certainly supported the iraq war, and i said i was very commit kul the way it was conducted early on and we were hostile in the management of the war, and so at the end of the day the war was managed the way it was managed and it was not very successful. look at the way we handled things post 9/11. a lot of good people working awfully hard in the national security world, and the intelligence professionals and military, and i don't think leadership has always been what it should have been, and that was for republicans and democrats. bushes policies were better than obamas. i think people should be upset and it's time for a change, and i was optimistic about the gop field, chris christie, and carly fiorina, and marco rubio, and i was excited to see outsiders like trump and carson, and carly
6:38 pm
fiorina and i don't think trump is the right person to be ready but i don't begrudge people admiring him and welcoming him to the stage, and i admire carly fiorina, and i thought trump could make a contribution. i think he has taken off and i didn't expect that, and the way he has taken off, i don't think it has been healthy ultimately. i don't think it's the end of the world and i don't think he will be the nominee, and i don't think the conservatism has gone off the cliff. you do worry, people get so unhappy with political leads and conventional wisdom, and i'm not happy with all of them, and you go to the opposite extreme, and you forget you still have to be responsible. we have serious challenges out there. these issues should be debated. i come back to the bill that is coming up today, i just think you can't underestimate how much that kind of legislation has
6:39 pm
hurt people's confidence in government, or a sense that at least they got a fair shot. whatever you think about worker -- quadripleg dupling th numbers of visas, that's a public policy debate. if you have the debate, votes on the floor of the congress and the president signs or vetoes the bill, and people feel like they had a shot to make their case, and we will vote against the representative if they vote the wrong way, and people just feel disenfranchised, and it's also why more power should go back to the states, and people have more sense of the ability to govern themselves. people feel self government slipping away. frustration is not expressed very sensibly.
6:40 pm
people have to feel the frustration and sympathize with it. >> and ron is on the democrat's line. you are on with bill crystal. >> good morning, peter and good morning, bill. e good morning. >> caller: i have never agreed with you until mr. trump, and i take objection to jesse ventura, considering i am from minnesota. jesse was probably one of the best governors. if you want to talk about grassroots, he was an independent and when he was actually probably preceding the tea party, and as far as mr. trump goes, he's tearing part to party and as a democrat, i can sit back and laugh and enjoy it. enjoy it very well. because he is going to do damage that i know is going to take and go on for quite sometime.
6:41 pm
as far as them thinking government is going to protect me. you know what i'm afraid of? i'm afraid they are going to take and use too much of my resources to worry about al qaeda, isis coming in here and not worry about the other tens of thousands of terrorists, the white male that is in the united states that are shooting up clinics, and congress women and theaters and churches, i want those things stopped. those are the things that they are going to be lax about. >> that's ron in bradenton. mr. crystal? >> i think we could be tough on all forms of violent crime and strong on law enforcement and strong on the war on terror. i don't think it's a resource question, and i would say the
6:42 pm
amount of money we are spending as a nation certainly on national defense is close to historic lows and even on law enforcement and related activities at home is not excessive in my view, but it's money well spent. the security, and strength abroad and security at home are the first functions of the government, and obviously the federal government and the police force, and needing national agencies to get involved. i am a hawk abroad, and i think we can afford to do this, and we have done a lot of things we don't need to be doing. let me say a word about trump. it's an interesting question, and is he really going to tara part the republican party. it's possible and i don't really see it yet.
6:43 pm
the polling last week, it was a good poll. it had trump ahead, so you know, it was not minimizing the strength of trump, but in the match-ups of different candidates for trump, he trailed by 10 points. doesn't matter if he won the campaign, he could charm and people change their minds, and we have seen this in the campaign on the republican side, right? but as of now, trump is the weakest candidate. marco rubio was leading hillary clinton by three points, and ted cruz was only trailing hillary clinton by three points. imperfe imperfectally, and should not the that be damaging other republicans? it doesn't look that way, if you told me a year ago that rubio plus three against hillary in
6:44 pm
december, i would have said that's pretty good odds, onjustly for a much lesser known candidate going up against hillary clinton. i would say as of now, i feel as somebody who is a glancing republican, i don't feel he has done much damage to the republican party. maybe people think trump is trump. you don't look at trump and think that's the republican party. you like him or don't like him and you think he is unique, and meanwhile there is cruz and jeb bush and the more normal republicans out there. i think the caller could be right, you know, we go through two or three, four months of this, and one could imagine bitterness after the fight, and supporters saying they won't
6:45 pm
support the other nominee and you could imagine the party in some disarray. >> hi, johnny. >> caller: good morning. how are you people doing? >> fine. >> caller: man, you are so out of touch with the american people, and you just pissed off one-third of the republican party by talking bad about donald trump. nobody brought trump up until you started talking. your ideas are so old you go back to reagan. >> are you a supporter of trump? >> caller: i don't trust any of them. >> what is your opinion of donald trump? >> caller: why don't you all retire? >> well, we got his point. >> that's a thought, you know. it occurs to me occasionally.
6:46 pm
what can i say? i am not a spokesman for the political class and i think i express sympathy those critical. people are entitled to be for trump, it's a free country. people have a strange attitude, it's like you are annoying one-third of the republican party. sorry, you know. what am i supposed to say? not say what i think because some people like donald trump? i think people that like donald trump need to look seriously at trump. he's an entertaining guy and i met him a couple times and he was likeable when i dealt with him, and i didn't sit around prior to the last three months thinking gee, donald trump is high on my list of people, and i didn't think one way or the other. a reality tv guy. three wives and kind of colorful and people like that in america, and i don't think he should be president of the united states.
6:47 pm
i guess my challenge to all the pro trump people out there you have to convince yourself he should be president of the united states, not that it's fun being for him and it's fun shocking the political class, and those things can be fun, but when it comes to voting people have to vote for somebody to be president and that's why i think trump support will diminish as we get close to the actual votes and caucus and the primaries. >> we spoke about the spending bill and mentioned donald trump in the presidential, and it has sucked the oxygen out of the program in the fact that has become our topic now? >> it seems to do that across the board. >> he has been fantastic at making himself center of attention. cruz surpasses trump over the weekend, and it was one of the polls in iowa, and i remember we spoke about that on sunday and people were talking, could cruz
6:48 pm
be stronger than we think, and cruz and rubio could fight, and then trump comes out with the muslim statement and totally dominates. he's smart. he's a clever demagogue, and that's a term that describes a certain kind of politician that i think accurately describes trump. as i said earlier, it's a test for the other candidates. i think others are doing better in reacting to trump than two or three weeks ago, and the caller was right about this, the political class was in denial and thought it would go away, and now they have to explain what their policies are, and people begin to take on trump, and some more effectively than others on the debate on tuesday night. maybe this will make a cruz or rubio or christie a better candidate. whoever beats trump will be a
6:49 pm
stronger candidate as a result going into the fall election. >> john, southampton, pennsylvania, republican line, thanks for holding, and you are on with weekly standards, bill crystal. >> caller: i go back with mr. crystal when he was chief of staff of the vp, dan quail. mr. christie used to be an immigration enthusiasts and foreign policy middle east hawk. i was happy to see a few years ago he began to moderate his immigration enthusiasm, but i agree whole hautdly and i was encouraged to say that he has failed as far as being a political elite with respect to his middle east ideology. obviously the financial elites have failed, the financial crisis, and the like. the political class has failed.
6:50 pm
the media class has failed. the hollywood class has corrupted the culture and failed. it would be tough to find an elite class that has has not fa. but in any event, the only issues in the election are immigration and foreign policy. and see, i'm very encouraged to hear republicans -- trump, cruz, rand paul, actually being sensible about the middle east, about -- replacing tyrants and a regime change. and creating chaos and killing milli millions. there was no need to occupy afghanistan. we should have killed osama bin laden and the crew. we never should have invaded iraq, cost trillions of dollars. >> all right, john, a lot there
6:51 pm
on the table. mr. crystal. >> well, i wish all of your view ers didn't remember me going so far back, just makes me feel old. i guess it's better than the alternative. >> i guess it goes to the question, have you changed your position? >> i am consistent on foreign policy, even though i think the execution of some of those policies has failed. and i don't agree therefore with the caller on pulling back from the middle east or on the lack of necessary on saving america really being a kind of world policeman. i think if you don't do that you have what we have now. look, we have had an experiment for the last several years of america pulling out of the middle east. chaos, terror, this was not the situation in 2008, either afghanistan or iraq. so those interventions did not fail. iraq may ultimately have failed because obama pulled us out in
6:52 pm
2009-2010. i have not changed my position, i was more liberal, i don't know if i was wrong at the time. i think it would have been good to have resolved the immigration issue when bush was president. i think having a republican president and congress was easier to do on more conservative grounds. but i think we just became more sympathetic to the immigration issue. i was just convinced for some of the arguments, obviously, it would have changed this minds to some degree. the foreign policy i am more convinced, especially in the middle east, we could have done more about china than the middle east in the late '90s, it just so happened it didn't happen. you don't get to choose the parts of the world,
6:53 pm
unfortunately, that you think a lot about. because parts of the world get to choose you after 9/11. we did a very good job of thought thinking about afghanistan for ten years after '89, but turns out there were people in afghanistan thinking about us. i totally think there is a need for american strength and leadership, kind of a quasi-leadership role. i do agree with the caller about the debate on whether or not the attitude towards assad should be, it's an intelligent debate, actually. watching the debates tuesday night, i mean, the republican debate tuesday night i think this was not a bad demonstration of serious people. obviously, we have the constraints of nine people on stage, articulated. there were some contrasts with
6:54 pm
each other of t. that is healthy for a political party. >> and jonathan last at your office said no matter who wins the gop nomination hillary is going to have a fight on her hands. >> right, walking through the merits of rubio and cruz candidates, christie as well. and then he makes the case, i'm not sure, i agree with it but an important case. if trump were to win the nomination then normal analysis will be the weakest against hillary clinton. but if trump wins the nomination it will be such an earthquake in american politics that it is foolish to assume that everything goes back to normal. he will have mobilized all the voters. maybe a lot of democrats who voted for president obama and certainly bill clinton in years past would decide they want to vote for donald trump, people who have not voted before. i think trump is such a wild card, some saying i don't want
6:55 pm
trump to be president. but it is foolish to say he would never be president. i think it's unlikely, i think it is likely, with cruz or fiorina, we'll all have better chances just for obvious reasons. i do think a matchup with rubio and cruz, probably right now you would have to say the top two after trump, against hillary clinton would be very interesting. the democrats who had the younger candidates so often, either against george bush or john mccain or mitt romney, the democrats who look like the future of the next generation. suddenly the republicans will look that way. i mean, imagine a rubio/cruz ticket, or -- that is a ticket of people in their 40s. early 50s, christie, 50, maybe 51, carly fiorina, early 50s, against secretary clinton who has been around for a long time. first came into the white house
6:56 pm
in january of 2003. i think the party generationally becomes pretty striking. republicans can say not only are we the younger party in terms of candidates and ideas, you look at paul ryan, speaker of the house, that has been under-reported, since trump took all the oxygen. the fact we now have a speaker of the house who is a 45-year-old policy wonk, very attractive figure, i think impressive figure, i don't agree with him on everything. more liberal than i am on immigration. that is a big change again from the image of the party, with the john boehner and mitch mcconnell, who if he wants advice from me, which i'm sure he is eager to have. he is very shrewd and tactical. he has extremely able members,
6:57 pm
ranging from tom cotton, and corey gardner, maybe he is 40 or something like that. and dan sullivan is about 50. they have a ton of new senators who are impressive, young, they're good young republican governor, obviously they didn't do so well in the presidential race but they remain impressive whether it is scott walker or people who didn't run like nicki haley, or susanna martinez, i have been favorable to the tea party. to the insurgents, some of them go a little off the rails, but the democratic party, if i were with the democratic party i would be a little worried. maybe hillary clinton can pull it off. but there are a lot of impressive young senators and governors, congressmen, the senators, the leadership in the democratic party in the house,
6:58 pm
mid-70s, nancy pelosi and hoyer, chuck schumer, late 60s, this is not exactly the faces of the future, i don't think. >> bill kristol, we thank you very much for coming and talking to our viewers. in the news today, congress passed a $1.1 trillion federal spending bill and $680 billion in tax extenders. the ap reports that the deal, a victory for new house speaker paul ryan avoids a governor shutdown, allows for crude oil exports and allows for college tax breaks and renewable including solar and wind power. the president signed the legislation earlier today. >> american history tv, every weekend on c-span-3. saturday night at 8:00 eastern, on lectures and history
6:59 pm
louisiana state university history professor andrew bernstein, and the emphasis on the politics and morals that shaped that generation. >> he starts out in 1727 by establishing the junto, the young men's improvement club. these were about improving their community. about individual morals. they would read books and share ideas. and these were young men like himself who were not born to wealth but who believed that it was possible to rely on yourself, study, and get ahead in society. >> and sunday morning at 10:00, on road to the white house rewind we look back to the 2000 campaign of george w. bush, his announcement to run while in new hampshire and his visits to tour the local small businesses and a pumpkin festival. bush went on to win the general
7:00 pm
election, defeating al gore, and later, the 1958 army film entitled "why nato". >> in december 1950, the north atlantic council decided to give to a single commander, general eisenhower, sufficient authority to train and integrate. the task before him was unprecedented. although each of the nato countries would see to the sly and support of its own national forces the supreme commander would be responsible for the single international force. >> and at 8:00, author catherine clinton, and why some of her critics have labelled her as

7 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on